Is spam annoying? Yes! Is it intrusive? Yes! Can people do something about it? YES!
A government solution should be the LAST resort. As long as people can do something about the crap that comes into their e-mail box, they should be encouraged to do so. If they don't know how, they need to be educated. And despite what you think of less technical users, most of them are willing to learn.
The problem is that people have gotten used to relying on the government to solve all of their problems for them, and people like you who tell them they aren't smart enough to help themselves.
For the record, I am in favor of some government intervention; only, however, when the people have no other viable alternative. An example would be the "Do-not call" lists. People don't have a viable way to filter telemarketing calls, so I believe government action is appropriate. But again, only as a last resort.
"But no, the rest of us are fighting to get laws in place to get rid of this shit, and this idiot is fighting against that because he's a wack job libertarian."
Laws like the ones that were supposed to get rid of shit like drugs? We all know how well THAT has turned out, don't we?
It's a shame that Libertarians are thought of as "wack-jobs" for believing in the concept of personal responsibility. How weak are people who need to depend on the government to protect them from every little inconvenience that comes their way?
I for one am tired of people who want to impose a parental government on the rest of us simply because they are too lazy to take care of their own problems. Giving people a little credit, rather than continuously telling them they cannot achieve anything without the government holding their hand, will empower them to learn how to take care of themselves.
"I am also paying for DRM wich DOESN'T EVEN FUCKING WORK."
On what are you basing that, the fact that it doesn't prevent shoplifters? If you think the amount of people who successfully shoplift games is anywhere near the number of people who download the games from the Internet, then I have a bridge I want to sell you.
Actually, I do have an idea (not strip-searching) that could deter shoplifters, if that really is your concern. They could include a magnetic strip (or something that can hold a tiny amount of data; don't know if a barcode alone would suffice) on the box. When the kid behind the counter scans it, your CD-key is printed out on the receipt.
Of course, some would find that to be an unacceptable pain in the ass, and would probably be prohibatively expensive for most game companies. It sucks that the price of shoplifted goods have to be included in the price of the game, but don't think for a second that the cost of the downloaded copies aren't part of that as well. Everything you buy has a theft/fraud surcharge built in. Deal with it.
DRM just happens to be a cheap and effective way to discourage illegal downloading of these games. As rampant as P2P filesharing is, I'm surprised they aren't charging $100 for these games. Be thankful it hasn't come to that yet.
"Oh and have you no regard for your privacy? Do you really want someone else to know exactly when you are playing games?"
I don't really care who knows when I'm playing games, as long as I'm not interrupted (ads, unsolicited e-mails, etc). The second my life is intruded upon by a game publisher is the second I stop playing their game.
"I fucking hate it however when games I bought with good money then limit me"
Then don't buy the game and you won't have to deal with the 'limits'.
"Do a test once between a normal game and a game with a no-cd patch applied. It will boot faster and often run faster as well....If the game is copied instead to the HD and played completly from their it will run faster."
If you're gripe about DRM is based on the insignificant speed difference of HD vs. CD, You'll have to do a little better than that.
"I am fed up with being treated like a criminal."
Don't yell at me, and don't yell at Valve. Yell at the people who have made measures like DRM necessary to ensure that these game companies are paid when people play the games they produce.
"Hell will get a tad chilly before I put up with the associated DRM."
If you're willing to pay for the game, why are your panties all in a bunch over Steam? It's not like it would affect you if you have a legitimate copy of the game.
So there's got to be some other motive behind your words... something more to the tune of "Someone please make a crack so I don't have to buy the game."
Ahh yes, another triumph for Big Government (tm) over private industry!
And if this is administered as inefficiently and with as much incompetence as most other government beaurocracies, is this 'free' (actually paid for by Baltimore/Maryland taxpayers) service really going to be worth not having to pay for reliable service that thrives on remaining high-quality? I think not.
"I know that's part of what the X-Prize is designed to remedy, but realisticly it will take "big business" to drive down the cost."
But, but, but BIG BUSINESS is EVIL!!! Any corporate conglomerate that digs its meat-hooks into space will surely do so on the backs of the people, and manage to destroy the interstellar environment in the process! And just like they exploit aliens here on earth, what's stopping them from enslaving aliens from other worlds?
Don't you tell me there's something that the Geek Collective can't do with idealism and free (beer AND speech!) software alone! I refuse to believe it! That's blasphemy, and such heresy should be moderated accordingly!
I didn't mean to imply that should be the case, but seeing how our politicians treat our hard-earned money like it's their own, this isn't really an inaccurate statement.
"'Take money from the wealthy' implies getting those who hoard money to spend it."
In a capitalist's mind, you are correct.
However, in a socialist's mind, that means "Confiscate their wealth through taxation down to the median income level and divide the spoils among the 'underprivileged'".
Not surprised to see this one modded up, given the prevailing sentiments here...
How sad is it when people are encouraged to take other people's wealth instead of create their own?
Why beat around the bush and just come out and suggest that everyone forks their paycheck over to the government so that they can give everyone an equal share (minus whatever government believes it is entitled to)? That's really what you're advocating, so why not come out and say it?
STOP right there! There never WAS a surplus! What you are referring to was a PROJECTED surplus! The same phenomenon that the granparent post refered to happened at the federal level; they allocated funds assuming the dot-com bust wouldn't happen. Their budget was based on tax revenues they had expected to collect. But then the economy started tanking in '99, and that revenue never materialized, and hence there was never a surplus for Bush to piss away.
True, IMHO Bush hasn't exactly been fiscally responsible either, but neither the current state of the economy, nor the financial crisis that exists at all government levels, are entirely, or even mostly his fault.
And who's fault is it when these bands/musicians are fooled into signing a contract that will indebt them to the industry indefinitely?
I'd say it's 50% the industry's fault, and 50% the band's/musician's. The RIAA is deceptive in their promises, but there is also plenty of information out there explaining their tactics. The people signing these contracts are adults, and should be making informed decisions.
"It's that desire-to-create-and-share-your-creation thing..."
If that were the case, they wouldn't be signing multi-million dollar contracts with the RIAA. The fact that they do suggests their motivation is financial in nature.
"...that everyone always points to as to why you don't need to have a massive money making recording industry in order to get good music."
I agree with you there, but the fact remains that musicians are still flocking to the industry, and therefore the industry thrives.
I submit that the key to breaking the RIAA's stranglehold on music is educating prospective bands on the dangers of signing with a big label, and the benefits of the alternatives (small labels, independent/online distribution).
File-sharing is only going to piss off both the RIAA and the musicians Slashdotters claim to be working in the best interest of.
"You saying that people don't have a right to ask people not to violate their copyrights?"
Nope, I'm saying that the "fuck the RIAA, save the poor starving artist" line that a lot of Slashdotters use to somehow demonstrate that file-sharing is good for signed artists is total bunk.
If a band wants to sign with a major record label hoping for a big score, fine! But when those who don't score big start whining that the industry is screwing them over, the knee-jerk reaction here is that it's the the industry's fault that the foolish band signed a bad contract, and that they are somehow helping that band when they download their music without paying the RIAA. That argument has never held water!
These bands chose to make their money via the RIAA, and the fans of those bands should respect that choice and either buy their CDs, or not listen to them at all (except, of course, on the radio).
"Hey, if you don't like them making money off of music, don't buy the album. "
I don't. But it's not because I have a problem with them making money off of their music. It's because I think most of it is crap.
If that were true, we wouldn't have the likes of Lars Ulrich (sp?) bitching about file-sharers cutting into their profits.
And it's the big bands like Metallica whose music is downloaded/shared the most, not that of small-label musicians who, more likely than not, appreciate the free mass-distribution.
"If you sign something and then realise it's a bad deal, tough."
My sentiment exactly! That's why I don't buy this "poor starving artists" bullshit I see slung around here being used to (somehow) justify illegal filesharing.
If a band wants to sell their product through the RIAA, then fine; they'll get what's coming to them. Slashdotters (and more) should 'educate' them by refusing to buy or even listen to their music, and that includes not downloading their songs.
These bands should not be rewarded for their greed with our sympathy. If their dreams of getting rich off of us are dashed by an even greedier industry, why should we feel obligated to help them? I know I don't!
"So their profit is $6.6 million; the band may as well be working at a 7-Eleven."
If that were the case, you'd think that the RIAA would have a hard time finding bands willing to sign contracts, and 7-Elevens would be inundated with job applications from band members who didn't make any money.
But of course, there never seems to be a shortage of new bands polluting the airwaves, so I have to conclude that either your facts aren't entirely true, or aren't entirely complete. Afterall, SOMETHING is driving these bands to aspire for a big contract, and it's not poverty.
"The catch is, you have to be running it on HP equipment;)"
Perhaps my coffee hasn't kicked in yet, but why would anyone believe that HP would assume liability for people who may not even be customers? If they're going to be doing your company this favor, shouldn't it at least prove it's an HP customer? That seems pretty reasonable to me!
"I have seen that exact thing happen so many times that I cannot fathom why we still see things like the recent procurement deal the Army signed for ~$900 million that only included MS OSes."
I don't suppose you ever entertained the notion that perhaps the applications the Army needed to run weren't available on any other operating systems, did you?
Their choice was 1. the functionality they needed, with some potential security risks, or 2. nothing at all.
As hard as it is for some people to understand, there's more to the government than propping up Microsoft.
"Every software in government, which is paid for from citizens taxes, should be open source."
Maybe I'm being a little bit picky here, but I'd prefer the best tool for the job (yes, I am a gov't employee).
If that happens to be open source, so much the better, but I don't want to be forced to fumble around with an inadequate tool, and waste time and taxpayer dollars, just for the sake of using open source software.
Whether or not some people care to admit it (and there are pleny who still don't), sometimes the only/best tool for the job is closed-source commercial software.
Slashdot Mirror
A government solution should be the LAST resort. As long as people can do something about the crap that comes into their e-mail box, they should be encouraged to do so. If they don't know how, they need to be educated. And despite what you think of less technical users, most of them are willing to learn.
The problem is that people have gotten used to relying on the government to solve all of their problems for them, and people like you who tell them they aren't smart enough to help themselves.
For the record, I am in favor of some government intervention; only, however, when the people have no other viable alternative. An example would be the "Do-not call" lists. People don't have a viable way to filter telemarketing calls, so I believe government action is appropriate. But again, only as a last resort.
Laws like the ones that were supposed to get rid of shit like drugs? We all know how well THAT has turned out, don't we?
It's a shame that Libertarians are thought of as "wack-jobs" for believing in the concept of personal responsibility. How weak are people who need to depend on the government to protect them from every little inconvenience that comes their way?
I for one am tired of people who want to impose a parental government on the rest of us simply because they are too lazy to take care of their own problems. Giving people a little credit, rather than continuously telling them they cannot achieve anything without the government holding their hand, will empower them to learn how to take care of themselves.
On what are you basing that, the fact that it doesn't prevent shoplifters? If you think the amount of people who successfully shoplift games is anywhere near the number of people who download the games from the Internet, then I have a bridge I want to sell you.
Actually, I do have an idea (not strip-searching) that could deter shoplifters, if that really is your concern. They could include a magnetic strip (or something that can hold a tiny amount of data; don't know if a barcode alone would suffice) on the box. When the kid behind the counter scans it, your CD-key is printed out on the receipt.
Of course, some would find that to be an unacceptable pain in the ass, and would probably be prohibatively expensive for most game companies. It sucks that the price of shoplifted goods have to be included in the price of the game, but don't think for a second that the cost of the downloaded copies aren't part of that as well. Everything you buy has a theft/fraud surcharge built in. Deal with it.
DRM just happens to be a cheap and effective way to discourage illegal downloading of these games. As rampant as P2P filesharing is, I'm surprised they aren't charging $100 for these games. Be thankful it hasn't come to that yet.
"Oh and have you no regard for your privacy? Do you really want someone else to know exactly when you are playing games?"
I don't really care who knows when I'm playing games, as long as I'm not interrupted (ads, unsolicited e-mails, etc). The second my life is intruded upon by a game publisher is the second I stop playing their game.
Then don't buy the game and you won't have to deal with the 'limits'.
"Do a test once between a normal game and a game with a no-cd patch applied. It will boot faster and often run faster as well....If the game is copied instead to the HD and played completly from their it will run faster."
If you're gripe about DRM is based on the insignificant speed difference of HD vs. CD, You'll have to do a little better than that.
"I am fed up with being treated like a criminal."
Don't yell at me, and don't yell at Valve. Yell at the people who have made measures like DRM necessary to ensure that these game companies are paid when people play the games they produce.
If you're willing to pay for the game, why are your panties all in a bunch over Steam? It's not like it would affect you if you have a legitimate copy of the game.
So there's got to be some other motive behind your words... something more to the tune of "Someone please make a crack so I don't have to buy the game."
...it was FREED!!
I don't really think a lot of good programmers fear UI design as much as they find it irrelevant.
If this book makes a good case as to WHY good UI development skills are important, than I think we'd have a winner.
And if this is administered as inefficiently and with as much incompetence as most other government beaurocracies, is this 'free' (actually paid for by Baltimore/Maryland taxpayers) service really going to be worth not having to pay for reliable service that thrives on remaining high-quality? I think not.
It's provided and monitored by Big Brother, so it's bad!
It's free (beer), so it's good!
It's inherantly insecure, so it's bad!
It's inherantly insecure, so it's good!
What's it called when someone tells you do do something, and then does the opposite?
Oh yes, that's hypocrisy.
But, but, but BIG BUSINESS is EVIL!!! Any corporate conglomerate that digs its meat-hooks into space will surely do so on the backs of the people, and manage to destroy the interstellar environment in the process! And just like they exploit aliens here on earth, what's stopping them from enslaving aliens from other worlds?
Don't you tell me there's something that the Geek Collective can't do with idealism and free (beer AND speech!) software alone! I refuse to believe it! That's blasphemy, and such heresy should be moderated accordingly!
I didn't mean to imply that should be the case, but seeing how our politicians treat our hard-earned money like it's their own, this isn't really an inaccurate statement.
In a capitalist's mind, you are correct.
However, in a socialist's mind, that means "Confiscate their wealth through taxation down to the median income level and divide the spoils among the 'underprivileged'".
How sad is it when people are encouraged to take other people's wealth instead of create their own?
Why beat around the bush and just come out and suggest that everyone forks their paycheck over to the government so that they can give everyone an equal share (minus whatever government believes it is entitled to)? That's really what you're advocating, so why not come out and say it?
STOP right there! There never WAS a surplus! What you are referring to was a PROJECTED surplus! The same phenomenon that the granparent post refered to happened at the federal level; they allocated funds assuming the dot-com bust wouldn't happen. Their budget was based on tax revenues they had expected to collect. But then the economy started tanking in '99, and that revenue never materialized, and hence there was never a surplus for Bush to piss away.
True, IMHO Bush hasn't exactly been fiscally responsible either, but neither the current state of the economy, nor the financial crisis that exists at all government levels, are entirely, or even mostly his fault.
I'd say it's 50% the industry's fault, and 50% the band's/musician's. The RIAA is deceptive in their promises, but there is also plenty of information out there explaining their tactics. The people signing these contracts are adults, and should be making informed decisions.
If that were the case, they wouldn't be signing multi-million dollar contracts with the RIAA. The fact that they do suggests their motivation is financial in nature.
"...that everyone always points to as to why you don't need to have a massive money making recording industry in order to get good music."
I agree with you there, but the fact remains that musicians are still flocking to the industry, and therefore the industry thrives.
I submit that the key to breaking the RIAA's stranglehold on music is educating prospective bands on the dangers of signing with a big label, and the benefits of the alternatives (small labels, independent/online distribution).
File-sharing is only going to piss off both the RIAA and the musicians Slashdotters claim to be working in the best interest of.
Nope, I'm saying that the "fuck the RIAA, save the poor starving artist" line that a lot of Slashdotters use to somehow demonstrate that file-sharing is good for signed artists is total bunk.
If a band wants to sign with a major record label hoping for a big score, fine! But when those who don't score big start whining that the industry is screwing them over, the knee-jerk reaction here is that it's the the industry's fault that the foolish band signed a bad contract, and that they are somehow helping that band when they download their music without paying the RIAA. That argument has never held water!
These bands chose to make their money via the RIAA, and the fans of those bands should respect that choice and either buy their CDs, or not listen to them at all (except, of course, on the radio).
"Hey, if you don't like them making money off of music, don't buy the album. "
I don't. But it's not because I have a problem with them making money off of their music. It's because I think most of it is crap.
If that were true, we wouldn't have the likes of Lars Ulrich (sp?) bitching about file-sharers cutting into their profits.
And it's the big bands like Metallica whose music is downloaded/shared the most, not that of small-label musicians who, more likely than not, appreciate the free mass-distribution.
My sentiment exactly! That's why I don't buy this "poor starving artists" bullshit I see slung around here being used to (somehow) justify illegal filesharing.
If a band wants to sell their product through the RIAA, then fine; they'll get what's coming to them. Slashdotters (and more) should 'educate' them by refusing to buy or even listen to their music, and that includes not downloading their songs.
These bands should not be rewarded for their greed with our sympathy. If their dreams of getting rich off of us are dashed by an even greedier industry, why should we feel obligated to help them? I know I don't!
If that were the case, you'd think that the RIAA would have a hard time finding bands willing to sign contracts, and 7-Elevens would be inundated with job applications from band members who didn't make any money.
But of course, there never seems to be a shortage of new bands polluting the airwaves, so I have to conclude that either your facts aren't entirely true, or aren't entirely complete. Afterall, SOMETHING is driving these bands to aspire for a big contract, and it's not poverty.
Perhaps my coffee hasn't kicked in yet, but why would anyone believe that HP would assume liability for people who may not even be customers? If they're going to be doing your company this favor, shouldn't it at least prove it's an HP customer? That seems pretty reasonable to me!
I don't suppose you ever entertained the notion that perhaps the applications the Army needed to run weren't available on any other operating systems, did you?
Their choice was 1. the functionality they needed, with some potential security risks, or 2. nothing at all.
As hard as it is for some people to understand, there's more to the government than propping up Microsoft.
My reply was more directed towards the idea that everything the government uses/produces should be open source.
Maybe I'm being a little bit picky here, but I'd prefer the best tool for the job (yes, I am a gov't employee).
If that happens to be open source, so much the better, but I don't want to be forced to fumble around with an inadequate tool, and waste time and taxpayer dollars, just for the sake of using open source software.
Whether or not some people care to admit it (and there are pleny who still don't), sometimes the only/best tool for the job is closed-source commercial software.